Loading ITAT cases…
321 orders · Page 3 of 7
The Tribunal noted that the Learned CIT(A) had issued four notices of hearing between May and November 2025. While the assessee filed adjournment applications for notices dated 18/11/2025 and 25/11/2025, the CIT(A) did not grant further time and proceeded to pass the order on 09/12/2025, within four days of the last fixed hearing date. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the grounds afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to file relevant documents and submissions without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to consider an assessment order for AY 2021-2022, where no addition was made for a similar alleged cash contribution of Rs. 12,50,000 based on the same incriminating material, along with corroborating documentary evidence filed by the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, without making any findings on the merits of the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without examining the issues on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with the law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documentary evidence and explanations and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The specific findings on the merits of grounds 2 to 6 were not made as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 649 days in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations and that there is no presumption of deliberate delay. On merits, the Tribunal noted that no representation was made before the CIT(A) after the appeals were filed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to adjudicate the grounds raised afresh. The assessee was directed to update its contact details. Ground No. 1 (regarding validity of reopening) was allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits. Grounds 2 and 3 (regarding objections to reopening and additions under Section 68) were dismissed as infructuous due to the remand. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT, while acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance during assessment proceedings, decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals on grounds of delay without adjudicating the issues on merits. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the quantum assessment order for AY 2012-13 and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documents and explanations. For the penalty appeal related to AY 2012-13, since the quantum appeal was set aside, the penalty appeal was also set aside to the AO. Regarding the penalty appeal for AY 2010-11, the Tribunal noted that the corresponding quantum appeal was pending before the CIT(A) and therefore, treated the penalty appeal as premature, allowing the assessee to approach the Tribunal for revival after the disposal of the quantum appeal. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessee under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had incorrectly relied on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments (Chandra Ranganathan vs. CIT and CIT vs. Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan) which dealt with Section 10(10C) and the eligibility of compensation under an Optional Early Retirement Scheme (OERS) based on Rule 2BA, and did not have occasion to deal with Section 10(10B). The Tribunal found that various Benches of the ITAT, including Co-ordinate Benches of the Ahmedabad Bench, have consistently held that the failure to make the claim in the original return was due to a lack of awareness of the legal provision. Therefore, respectfully following these decisions, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim for exemption of the entire amount received as compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) regarding the use of Hemo Organics Limited shares for accommodation entries. The AO made an addition of INR 12,16,738 under Section 68, as the assessee allegedly failed to comply with notices. The assessee contended that assessment proceedings were hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic and family health issues, preventing proper representation. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the additional documentary evidence filed by the assessee, including computation of income, ledger accounts, pass-books, contract notes, and broker bills, despite these being placed before the CIT(A) via Form 35. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the assessment proceedings occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the additional evidence was not considered. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to consider all documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. The assessee was also granted liberty to submit further documents. Grounds 1 to 3 were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, subject to a cost deposit. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's non-cooperation warranted scrutiny, the AO's estimation of profit at 2% lacked a rational basis. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for a detailed examination.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, was not applicable retrospectively to the assessment year 2015-16. It also noted that the profit was already offered to tax, thus the addition constituted double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans were not sham transactions, as the assessee had provided details of receipts and repayments. Consequently, the reassessment was barred by limitation as the assessee had not failed to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that the property, despite being recorded as two bungalows, was constructed and used as a single residential unit. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the full deduction claimed under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that the fresh notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the surviving period of limitation as determined by the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were found to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as proper inquiries were not conducted, especially concerning the CGST Department's findings and red-flagged information. The assessment order was set aside for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271DA was not sustainable. It was found that the cash was deposited directly by customers into the assessee's bank account and not physically received by the assessee, and there was no intentional contravention of Section 269ST.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeal fell within the purview of CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, which instructs not to file appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 60 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the AO-TDS under section 201 of the Act in the name of the non-existing entity, EMC IT Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., despite specific intimation regarding the fact of amalgamation, is void ab initio. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), which held that after amalgamation, the amalgamating entity ceases to exist, and any order passed subsequently in its name would be without jurisdiction. The Tribunal found the reliance placed by the learned CIT(A) on Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra) and Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to be misplaced. In Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the taxpayer had suppressed the fact of amalgamation, whereas in the present case, the assessee had duly intimated the merger before the initiation of proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that merely mentioning the name of the amalgamated company in the body of the order does not fulfil the legal requirement when the order is addressed to and served on the erstwhile, non-existent entity. Consequently, the order passed under section 201 of the Act was quashed. As a result, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed. The other grounds concerning the merits of interest levied under section 201(1A) were rendered academic and kept open.
The Tribunal noted that Grounds 1 and 2 were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed. Regarding Ground 3, the Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities. It held that for computing capital gains, the cost of acquisition must be deducted. As per Section 50A r.w.s. 43(6), the WDV of the assets as on the date of transfer is taken as the cost of acquisition for a block of assets on which depreciation has been claimed. Since the assessee had not claimed depreciation after AY 2013-14, the WDV as declared in AY 2013-14 (Rs. 1.23 Crores) should be considered the cost of acquisition. The sale of assets for Rs. 1.11 Crores in a distress sale by the bank resulted in a loss, not capital gains. Therefore, Ground 3 was allowed. For Ground 4, since the claim for WDV was allowed, the separate claim for unabsorbed depreciation was rendered moot and thus dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148, issued on April 1, 2021, was invalid as it did not follow the procedure mandated by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal's case, which required a notice under section 148A and a subsequent order before issuing a fresh notice under section 148. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid because there was a disconnect between the information received, the reasons recorded, and the actual addition made. The reassessment order was quashed as the foundation for reopening was not established.
The Tribunal found that the issue required verification of facts regarding the execution of Banakhat agreements and timely payment of consideration through banking channels. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal upheld the disallowance of proportionate interest on funds diverted for partner withdrawals, citing violations of RERA guidelines and lack of business expediency. However, it remanded the matter to the AO to verify if similar disallowances were made in prior years for the opening debit balance.
The Tribunal found that while the rejection of books and the need for estimation were justified due to discrepancies, the AO's method of estimating the sale consideration was not adequately supported. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid because there was a disconnect between the information received, the reasons recorded, and the actual addition made. The reassessment order was quashed as the foundation for reopening was not established.
The Tribunal held that the commission was paid for services rendered by the Managing Director, was approved by the Board, and was linked to performance. It was also noted that dividend was separately declared and the director paid tax on the commission.
The Tribunal held that if a loan amount is repaid, it cannot be treated as an accommodation entry, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of bogus loan and unexplained expenditure was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide cogent reasons for rejecting the books of accounts and applying an 8% net profit rate. The Tribunal also noted that additional evidence was filed for unsecured loans, requiring verification.
The Tribunal held that the credit entries in the bank account did not automatically translate into 'unrecorded investments' under Section 69, especially when debit entries (withdrawals) almost equaled credits. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the deduction claim for Education Fund and Members Welfare Fund, remanding it for proper adjudication. For the Shareholder Benefit Fund, the ITAT remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as the assessee failed to provide evidence of statutory obligation.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation, as both the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were passed after the expiry of the balance survival period.
The Tribunal held that the credit entries in the bank accounts did not automatically translate into 'unrecorded investments' under Section 69. The addition was deleted as the Assessing Officer mechanically totaled credit entries while ignoring corresponding debit entries and the assessee had provided details of cash transactions and cheque discounting.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO relied on mere suspicion and lacked independent evidence to prove the transactions were bogus. The assessee had provided documentary evidence of share transactions through a recognized broker and banking channels.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO relied on mere suspicion and lacked independent evidence to prove the transactions were bogus. The assessee had provided documentary evidence of share transactions through a recognized broker and banking channels.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the cash deposits were from accumulated capital savings and that attributing the entire amount to the assessee was untenable as the account was jointly held. The addition of Rs. 10,72,000 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the GST reversal of Rs. 2,64,11,386/- is allowable as business expenditure. The Tribunal reasoned that GST collected from customers is not income but a statutory liability. The reversal of ITC, while not a fresh cash outflow in the current year, represents GST actually borne on project inputs that became irrecoverable due to the BU permission making the sale of units exempt from GST. The cash outflow for these inputs occurred in earlier years when the assessee paid suppliers, and the ITC was an asset. Upon BU permission, this asset was mandatorily extinguished to the extent attributable to unsold units, making it an irrecoverable component of project cost. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning conflated the original payment of GST with the statutory extinction of the right to recover that GST. The reversal was a statutory consequence of the project completion with unsold units, not a voluntary write-off. Therefore, grounds of appeal Nos. 2 to 4 were allowed. For Ground No. 5, concerning Rs. 85,59,538/-, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to examine the claim for AY 2023-24 to avoid double deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO relied on mere suspicion and lacked independent evidence to prove the transactions were bogus. The assessee had provided documentary evidence of share transactions through a recognized broker and banking channels.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO relied on mere suspicion and lacked independent evidence to prove the transactions were bogus. The assessee had provided documentary evidence of share transactions through a recognized broker and banking channels.
The Tribunal decided to delete the addition of INR 75,64,838/- made under Section 68 and consequently the addition of INR 1,51,297/- made under Section 69C. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed profits of INR 73,76,700/- from BSE-FO trades and offered them to tax. The assessee provided supporting documents like contract notes, bank statements, and annual reports to demonstrate that the transactions were part of its regular business and not pre-arranged. The Tribunal observed that the AO's reliance on SEBI's findings and the Supreme Court's decision in Rakhi Trading Private Limited was misplaced because, in this case, the assessee had made profits, not losses, and the AO did not identify any loss-making counter-parties. The Tribunal applied the test of preponderance of possibility in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal allowed Grounds 1, 3, and 4, and dismissed Ground 2. The operative direction is the deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte and the first appeal was dismissed without representation. The assessee contended that non-compliance was not deliberate, citing internal disputes for the Assessing Officer's proceedings and incorrect email addresses for the CIT(A)'s notices. The assessee claimed the cash deposits were business receipts. However, these contentions and supporting documents were not placed before the lower authorities. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted an opportunity to make a proper representation before the Assessing Officer, who was given liberty to examine the claims afresh. This was subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- as cost in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within 15 days. The assessee was directed to cooperate, file submissions, and ensure correct email addresses are on record. The Assessing Officer was permitted to adjudicate based on available material if the assessee failed to comply. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on the merits of the addition.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69C was not sustainable as there was no evidence of actual commission payment. The addition under Section 68 was deleted as the short-term capital gain from the share sale was already disclosed and taxed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was based solely on vague and general information from the Investigation Wing, without any specific documentary evidence. The assessee was not confronted with any such evidence.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of sale of Foodlink shares was supported by documentary evidence, including a SEBI PMS registration, account statements, and a valuation report. Therefore, the sale proceeds could not be treated as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68, and the long-term capital loss was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund as costs.
The Tribunal noted a CBDT circular that condoned delays for applications filed within a specific period. Since the assessee's application fell within this period, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the application on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the company on a business trip, even if not considered a business expenditure, does not constitute income or a perquisite in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the donation was not a genuine contribution eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC. Mere payment through banking channels and production of receipts were insufficient to override evidence that the recipient political party was engaged in providing accommodation entries.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that the reasons provided warranted a hearing on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the amount in question was indeed incurred and taxed in subsequent assessment years (2017-18 and 2018-19). Therefore, no further addition was required for AY 2016-17, and the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unjustified.